Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

OPINION

Two plans, lots of opportunity

Michigan
Published 11:07 p.m. ET May 9, 2015

Gov. Rick Snyder and a Detroit coalition have different school visions, but there’s room for agreement.(Photo: Detroit Free Press)

For decades, we've asked, cajoled, begged, ordered and instructed the powers that be to fix Detroit's schools.

We've made arguments ranging from the pragmatic — the state can't succeed without a functional Detroit, and Detroit can't succeed without a functional school system — to the elegant altruistic: Detroit's kids deserve better.

Finally, two recently released plans describe long-term visions for Detroit's public schools, one the product of the Coalition for the Future of Detroit Schoolchildren — a community, business and civic group — and one developed by Gov. Rick Snyder's education team.

Which plan charts the right course for Detroit's schools and Detroit's kids? Maybe neither. Maybe parts of both. We've tried to evaluate each plan in realistic terms and find the common ground between them. There are opportunities for collaboration and for improvement. Regardless, community members, local elected leaders and state officials must find a viable path forward.

Governance

Where they're different: The coalition's and the governor's plans lay out two distinctly different versions of Detroit's schools: The coalition sees Detroit Public Schools, in its current format — including its elected board — as the way forward. The governor proposes a dramatic change, splitting the district into two entities, old and new districts. It's not entirely clear how this would legally be accomplished, with regards to creating a new district, dividing the debt, accounting for pension liabilities, transferring DPS' physical assets and negotiating or re-negotiating labor contracts.

The key to Snyder's plan is splitting DPS into an "old company" and a "new company," similar to General Motors during bankruptcy. The old district would collect DPS' non-homestead 18-mill operating levy, and use that money to retire DPS' $483 million in operating debt. The new City of Detroit Education District would handle the business of educating children, using the state's per-pupil foundation allowance and a subsidy from the School Aid Fund. The new district would initially be governed by an appointed board — three by Detroit's mayor, four by the governor. Appointed members would phase out, starting in 2017, and the board would be all-elected by 2021.

Both plans foresee the creation of new entities to provide oversight or consistency, but present starkly different images for the future of DPS governance. The coalition envisions a citywide commission to call the shots on school openings and closures, across traditional public schools, EAA schools and charters, as well as community-led school and regional advisory bodies to give parents and other stakeholders input. The governor's plan would also create a commission, that would hire an education manager to administer common enrollment, coordinate school closures and monitor school performance. A state review commission would oversee each district until DPS' debt is retired.

Where they're alike: Both suggest the retention of a public school district, configured much the way Detroit Public Schools is now, and they agree that, ultimately, that district should be managed by a locally elected school board.

That's a significant starting point, and a victory of sorts for Detroiters who worried that Snyder, whose close adviser Paul Pastorek helped create an all-charter school district for New Orleans, might try the same here.

Opportunities: Splitting the district would handle DPS' debt, and a new district could be more functional, if it works. Snyder should consider the coalition's plan a good backup — because it may be the only viable plan.

Funding

Where they're different: The coalition points out a truth many in Lansing or outstate won't like or won't accept: Much of the district's debt was racked up under state control. The state is constitutionally responsible for the bulk of DPS' debt — and it's also morally obligated. The district has suffered through not one but two state takeovers, all predicated on the theory that the state would leave the district in an improved condition. That hasn't happened. The district's debt is crushing its ability to operate — interest alone consumes about 13% of revenue, compared to 2% or 3% in other districts. DPS spends about 43% of its operating funds on instruction; other districts spend up to 64%, the coalition report found.

The coalition's plan embraces the state's moral responsibility for DPS' debt, and asks the state to assume full responsibility for the obligation. The governor's doesn't.

Where they're alike: In the governor's plan to split DPS, the old district would collect the existing operating millage to pay down DPS' debt. The new, unencumbered district would operate free of debt, using the state's per-pupil allowance to fund operations. But the loss of the millage-generated funds means the new district would be about $53 million to $72 million in the hole.

And here's where the governor's plan at least tacitly acknowledges that DPS needs financial help — Snyder proposes backstopping the district's budget hole with money from the School Aid Fund, amounting to a $50-per-pupil cut in districts across the state. It's a recognition that DPS' circumstances are different than other Michigan school districts, even those that are financially struggling, and over time, it means the state will send as much or more to DPS as it would have if it took DPS' debt outright.

Opportunities: The governor's proposed $50-per-pupil cut is the most noxious part of this plan. Parents and superintendents in metro Detroit and outstate districts — many in financial jeopardy themselves — will mount fierce opposition to any per-pupil cut, particularly if those funds go to another district. It's a false dilemma, creating animosity where none needs to exist by pitting school districts against each other. It's so ill-conceived, we wonder whether it's a poison pill; we can't imagine a scenario in which sufficient lawmakers vote "yes" on a plan that includes this provision.

And they shouldn't have to. The coalition's recommendation offers a straightforward way to handle the district's debt. Snyder's own plan acknowledges state responsibility for DPS' debt. So why take it out of local districts? State assumption of district debt won't be an easy sell, but compared to the battle royal that Snyder's plan would launch, we'll take it.

Snyder should use what political capital he possesses to lobby outright for state responsibility for DPS' debt.

Local control

Where they're different: Local control is probably the clearest demarcation between the coalition's plan and Snyder's.

The coalition would keep the Detroit Public Schools intact and its elected board in place; in fact, the board's authority would widen, as the schools currently in the Educational Achievement Authority — which is the state's reform district — would transition back to DPS control.

The coalition would see the creation of a handful of new entities that would have a say in DPS, all locally composed.

In Snyder's plan, the elected board would remain in control of the old district, responsible for paying down DPS' debt. The new district would be governed by an appointed board. Members of that board would be appointed by the governor and the mayor of Detroit; appointed members would begin to cycle off the board in 2017. By 2021, the board would be composed entirely of locally elected members.

But it's not, at least at the outset, local control.

Snyder also proposes a state financial oversight board for both the old district and the new district, at least until the old district's debt is retired.

Where they're alike: Both plans envision the addition of several other entities, but there's a lot of daylight between them.

Opportunities: It galls us that Detroit, alone among districts in the state, should be asked or forced to sacrifice local control. Communities have an absolute right to decide how to educate their children. But both plans hinge on a significant state financial contribution, and this is the reality: Money always comes with strings attached. During the city's bankruptcy, an oversight board was a condition of the grand bargain that protected the Detroit Institute of Arts' collection and shored up city pensions.

Aid for Detroit is a tough sell in Lansing, and some measure of state-level accountability will surely be required to get a deal done. How can the governor and the coalition come together? Coalition members have community credibility. Endorsement of a temporarily appointed board could sooth residents' and parents' fears. It's a big ask, but political reality narrows opportunities for common ground.

The EAA

Where they're different: What to do about the Educational Achievement Authority, the state reform district for low-performing schools? The reform district has been wildly controversial, its successes still largely a matter of theory, not practice. It also has been dogged by embarrassing financial scandals that haven't instilled community confidence.

The coalition thinks the EAA's days are over, that the schools allotted to the district should be returned to DPS under the oversight of the district's elected board, and that schools that are still struggling use existing turnaround resources at the state level.

The governor thinks the EAA is worth preserving. His plan doesn't deal specifically with the EAA, but his spokeswoman told us last week that Snyder believes the EAA's methods work — suggesting that the reform district, at least in the short term, is here to stay.

Where they're alike: It's hard to find common ground on this one.

Opportunities: The governor should take the coalition's suggestions to heart. The EAA has done little to justify its existence. Returning the EAA schools to district oversight — especially with the new layers of accountability that Snyder hopes to add — could prove positive for kids in EAA schools. Regardless, we don't see much hope for the EAA. Enrollment has dropped by 25% in the four years that it's existed, to little more than 7,000; we think that trend will continue. How many students can the district lose before it becomes obsolete?